Candidate David T. Vahedi: 5th District, L.A. City Council

With the March 3 primary election drawing near, The Times asked all candidates for the 5th District Los Angeles City Council seat to respond to questions about key issues facing the nation's second-largest city. Today, candidate David T. Vahedi explains how he would handle city finances. Here are the responses from candidate David T. Vahedi:

1) What distinguishes you from the other candidates in the race?

I am a 35-year resident of the 5th district and the only candidate who has a proven track record of protecting the quality of life of 5th District residents over the last 10 years.

As an elected board member of Westwood South of Santa Monica Homeowner Association, I have successfully worked on eliminating graffiti, stopping illegal removal of city trees, removing illegal billboards, stopping the Veterans Administration from selling land to large developers and the overall protection of quality of life.

As an elected board member of the Westside Neighborhood Council, I am very proud of our council's achievement of using our limited city funding to assist the police and fire departments in getting vital equipment such as night vision cameras, license plate readers, specialized firefighting nozzles and oxygen masks for animals. We were also able to assist Westwood Elementary in installing grass and Overland Elementary with the creation of a new science lab.

I will bring this same energy and success in being efficient with limited city dollars to make quality of life my No. 1 focus.

Because of my proven track record, I have the honor of being endorsed by more community leaders and homeowner presidents than all my opponents combined. Please visit my website at VoteVahedi.com for more information.

However, what sets me apart most from my fellow candidates is my pledge not to accept campaign contributions from billboard companies, large developers, land use attorneys and firms that represent large developers, as I am dedicated to breaking the cycle of pay for play downtown.

2) Los Angeles likely will face a deficit of $400 million to $500 million in the 2009-2010 fiscal year, as well as steep shortfalls in the years that follow. If elected, how would you balance the city budget? Specifically, what programs or services would you cut, what taxes or fees would you increase, and what other measures would you take?

While the actual deficit is large by any means, residents and policymakers must analyze the deficit in relation to a $7-billion budget. As such, this year we must either cut spending by 6% to 7%, raise revenue by that same amount, or a combination of both.

After raising so many fees last year and based on the current recession, I would try to balance this year's budget through a reduction in spending. There is no question that a tremendous amount of waste and inefficiency still occurs within the city of Los Angeles. Just recently, it was disclosed that Los Angeles spends up to $10 million for city-owned cars that are driven home by employees. While a number of these vehicles are assigned to safety personnel who are on 24-hour call, much of this expense can be eliminated.

As an auditor with over 17 years of experience and the completion of over 350 comprehensive audits, and as a former criminal auditor, I have the skills and experience to find this type of waste. I was also the co-author of Prop. 223 in 1998, co-chaired by former Mayor Richard Riordan and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, that required our schools spend at least 95% of all school dollars in the classroom, which would shift a billion or more dollars to our schools without a tax increase. We have to bring these same types of efficiency programs to the city of Los Angeles.

However, just eliminating waste will not be enough to close this budget deficit. We will also have to refrain from replacing retiring workers for several years. While I know that this will require a greater amount of work from our remaining city workers, I have much faith in their abilities to thrive in these tough economic times.

3) To cut costs, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is considering layoffs or offering early retirement to city employees. Do you support either or both of those alternatives? Given the increased need for government assistance in these bad economic times, is now the right time to reduce the number of city employees or cut hours at libraries and city parks?

I commend the mayor for putting all options on the table to address a very difficult budget shortfall. But the proper analysis of the consequences of offering early retirement must be done. When private industry offers early retirement, the worker normally will not have pension benefits adjusted by cost of living as do city workers on an annual basis. Secondly, private industry will make early retirement offers when they either believe that the market is shrinking or replacement workers can be hired at substantially less cost. In the case of the city, as the city grows it will have to constantly grow its ranks, and with automatic pay increases any short term savings will quickly be lost. Finally, early retirement will tax the pension plans as more workers receive benefits earlier then expected.

While I hope attrition of workers through normal retirement and budget cuts will be sufficient, if layoffs are required I would avoid police, fire, and any intervention programs for children and focus on departments where a delay in service will not affect the residents and the city long term.

4) In June, the city's contracts with police and firefighters unions will expire. Should police officers and firefighters be given raises or increased benefits? If so, how would you pay for those, given the city's current financial condition?

For many years, our police and fire officers have been paid less than their counterparts in other agencies across the state and nation. Unfortunately, with this current budget, we will not be able to cure the inequity that exists. But after speaking to both groups' representatives, I believe that they understand that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to grant raises this year. Regardless, I am convinced that even without the pay raises, they will continue to work hard to offer world-class protection to our city.

I also want to specify one area that we cannot cut back on any further. Over the last several years, police and firefighters injured on the job while protecting us have been having greater difficulty receiving both medical benefits and pay while injured. This is unacceptable. These are the men and women who risk their lives every day to keep us safe. When they are injured, it is our turn to stand up and protect them.

5) Assess Councilman Jack Weiss' effectiveness on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 being the best score. What parts of Weiss' leadership will you emulate? Are there areas where Weiss could have performed better?

When Jack Weiss was elected in 2001, I had high hopes that he would be a great community leader.

After eight years, Jack Weiss though has supported every variance requested by every large developer. Our traffic is worse. We have less police officers in our divisions even though the city has hired an additional 1,200. We have less firefighters per capita, tree trimming is now on a 10-year cycle, and sidewalk repair on an 80-year cycle. We have failed to build any public parking, even though the 5th District parking meter fund had millions of dollars sitting idly by.

I do credit Jack Weiss for his willingness to use officeholder funds to supplement his staff's salaries to attract the best and brightest. His staff over the last four years has been a complement to Weiss. In addition, Jack Weiss should be commended for being a voice on the City Council against the illegal practices of the billboard industry.

Overall, based on Weiss' inability to attain our fair share of resources for the district, especially in light of how much revenue was generated for the city based on 5th District development, I would give Jack Weiss a 4 for effectiveness.